October Surprise/The Farris Surprise! Robinson Connection

On October 17, this blog wrote under ” Eliminate This HOA ” that a group of individuals will work to eliminate this HOA. This blog was half correct. By now you may have heard or read that a person in units 3 and 4, but almost 100% likely unit 4, has had an attorney write a letter to the board members stating that certain legal HOA documents may not have been recorded. This person feels he has found some loophole so that he can park his ” vehicle ” full time in his driveway without restrictions. This person, in the early summer of 2007 stated openly, that he wanted to eliminate the HOA altogether and just have that board run the common areas only. So maybe that will happen. There could be two individual developments. Units 1and 2, nice and tidy, no RV’s, boats, nicely maintained, the place where home values would stay stable. Units 3 and 4, where anything goes. Will that happen? When the name of this upstanding man is openly announced, it will not be much of a surprise to many, as he has had his hand in some questionable past issues with this development.

Update-11/04/2008. This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows Farris on Whipple Ct, but he is the person responsible for the proposed defection from the HOA. Farris used the attorney to write the letter, but the attorney will have no part in his pursuit of defection from the HOA. It is not known if Farris acted alone in this endeavor, or if his other friends on his street acted in concert to pull off this ” possible ” defection. At this point, with this group, anything is possible. But, please remember, the sky is not falling, the sun will rise again and this IS NOT a done deal. The DePaulo attorney responsible for units 3 and 4 is currently researching all documents and will act accordingly.

The old phrase ” watch out what you ask for ” really does apply in this situation. There are many great neighbors in units 3 and 4 who may be affected by this mans action. IF for some reason this legal issue holds true, just imagine the consequences of this persons mission. Anything goes-No Rules! Maybe some person purchasing the parcel next to Farris plans to repair motor vehicles in his garage/yard, it would be permissible. Maybe the purchaser wants to breed dogs on his property and have a back yard full of dog kennels…it would be permissible. Maybe the purchaser wants to use his parcel to park his landscape vehicles…… No rules anything goes. Maybe someone on Whipple wants to build an over-sized garage in which to store their large motor-home. More than one person on that street has a motor-home. HOA’s are not always easy to deal with, and we all have witnessed those issues in one form or another, but at least the CCR’s keep the development at a set standard.

Farris must be very proud of himself for discovering (researching many long hours) a POSSIBLE loophole in the documents when units 3 and 4 were developed. Is anyone else proud of him, other than his two friends on his street? I’m sure some will think this is all funny and cute. But, the association may incur legal fees (your dues dollars) to rectify this situation. Anyone happy with Farris should send him a thank you card, anyone unhappy…give him a call and tell him of your displeasure!

If nothing else, Farris is possibly a man of his word. In the summer of 2007, Farris was denied by the BOD and the architectual review committee permission to build a large garage to house his motor-home. Farris was also denied permission to have a large cement pad on which to park the vehicle. Farris stated that he was going to destroy this HOA and only make the board responsible for the common properties. Great job Farris…you have POSSIBLY exceeded your goal !

FURTHER UPDATE: AD Robinson, the former president of this HOA resigned from his position as a member at large on the BOD. The former president/ former member at large also implied that he is also defecting from the HOA, as is Farris. As far as a board member having a fiduciary responsibility to the membership he represents and looking out for the HOA and its best interests first and foremost, well………………..

Various departments in Kendall County Government and other venues have been contacted, as it relates to various Farris letters. All contacted Kendall County Departments related that because The Estates Of Millbrook was legally incorporated as a PUD, no home or parcel owner will be allowed to withdraw from being a member of the HOA. A requirement of any Kendall County development being incorporated as PUD is that they have an HOA and that all parcel owners are part of that agreement. Kendall County WILL NOT for any reason allow any individual or business (homeowner/vacant land owner) to withdraw from the HOA, no matter the reason. Kendall County WILL enforce that agreement and will take a legal remedy (civil law suit) against such person if that person makes such attempt to do so, meaning they will sue the person attempting to use a title Scribner error where the meets and bounds only describe 1 and 2, but all other documents include 3 and 4. The covenants are recorded for 3 and 4.

Thank God TO WHOM EVER YOU ARE THAT RESPONDED TO THIS EMAIL!!! We live on the south side of the subdivision and I do not appreciate any of this nonsense that has been coming about from Mr. Robinson and Mr. Farris. I have had enough of you both!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Neighbors or not you both are ruining the way my family wants to live in our home. DIDN’T YOU READ THE BY-LAWS AND CCR’S BEFORE YOU CHOSE TO MOVE HERE? THAT IS WHY WE MOVED HERE! THE CCR’s AND BY-LAWS PROTECT US FROM WHAT YOU TWO PEOPLE WANT TO CREATE! YOU BOTH HAVE MADE THIS DEVELOPMENT THE LAUGHING STOCK OF KENDALL COUNTY!

With respect to the issue of Farris v. The Estates of Millbrook Homeowners Association. It is opinion that Mr. Farris as a matter of professional courtesy to the Board Members of The Estates Of Millbrook, Millbrook, Illinois, and to the membership-at-large, would have optioned to first make notice to The Board of Directors of any potential errors in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for The Estates Of Millbrook (CCR) legally recorded in Kendall County, Illinois. If Mr. Farris did in actuality determine that a Scribner Error did exist in the By-Laws or CCR, the prudent and responsible action would have been to first make informal notification to the Board of Directors, requesting them to verify his findings. Unfortunately, Mr. Farris chose to contact an attorney whose letter explained that Mr. Farris was going to secede from the homeowners association instead. With respect to Mr. Farris’s employment with Kendall County, inasmuch as Kendall County will not allow any homeowner residing or owning property in a PUD to secede from that homeowners association, Mr. Farris has placed himself in a precarious position. If Mr. Farris proceeds with his legal action against The Estates of Millbrook Homeowners Association, he will most assuredly be embroiled in a legal action from his employer. One can only presume that Mr. Farris has first consulted legal counsel in his pursuit of this action. Mr. Farris will be in direct opposition to his employer, that being the Kendall County Board if he proceeds with this civil action.

In the perusal of various web sites, it obvious that Mr. Farris has openly opposed the homeowners association and its ability to manage the development. Consequently, it is also evident that Mr. Robinson is also openly generating discourse within the development. Ergo, what is very conspicuous is the issue of a special meeting of the membership-at-large being announced, before discovery of all documentation has been concluded. It is with much skepticism that Mr. Robinson and Mr. Farris have publicly announced this action to all parties before The Board Of Directors and their legal counsel have determined if there is any legal standing to the issues brought forth by Mr. Farris. In the most recent copy of the development newsletter, it indicated that an investigation was ongoing, pertaining to units 3 and 4, and as soon as conclusions could be drawn, the membership will be notified. It is with professional opinion the fact that Mr. Robinson has overreacted to this action and thereby caused unnecessary consternation to the membership. There is a saying amongst attorneys “ if you have a dog you don’t need to bark.”

After observing the various postings and after reading the latest HOA newletter, I am MAD as hell. To verify for my own satisfaction, I decided to contact 2 indpendent departments in Kendall county government. Both agencies told me that what Dave is attemtping to do will not be allowed. Both of these employees told me that Kendall will not allow anyone to get out of an hoa because that would set a precedent where anyone and everyone would then do it. I do not understand anything they were telling me about this PUD thing, but only that since our developer agreeded with the county to do it, all being owning land in such a place can’t sue to get out no matter what the reason. I mentioned to both people that Dave was their 911 manager and they told me that the county will not make any exceptions becuse of his connections with the county.

If all this is true as Chicago39 has explained and from what I learned on my own, my question is why has Daves attorney not been aware of this? The legal person at the county office told me that any attorney knowing about a PUD should know that no one can sue to get out.

I also can not understand why the board is calling for a meeting when it appears that all the needed information has not been gathered. Anyone should know that a rationale person waits for all the facts before reacting. I think that certain people in our development are being alarmist about this. The legal person at the county told me that if Dave thinks he can just get out of paying dues and obeying the rules, he is wrong and the county will protect our and their stakes in this association.

I for one will wait for our board president to give us all the facts when they are finished with what they need to do. I don’t appreciate what Tony has been writing about the other board members and I know Mrs. Woodson will give us honest answers when she has them.

I truly hope we can divide the two sections up, seperate HOA’s, making 1 and 2 The Estates of Millbrook and 3 and 4 name whatever the malcontents of Mr. Farris and Mr. Robinson want to call theirs. Then erect a decorative wall at the dividing line on Stonewall advising people of the two different developments. Also all those people who feel Mr. Farris and Mr. Robinson are such great neighbors, can then enjoy the view looking out their windows at the large structure/building that will house the large motorhome of Mr. Farris. Not only will the neighbors in units 3 and 4 view the motorhome year around, but also some of the homes that backup to the Farris home and reside on Wilcox and Sumner will also get to enjoy the view. All the Robinson aficionados can take joy in knowing it appears that while he was the President of the HOA, he was also working in concert behind the scenes with Farris to defect from the HOA. Really shows the character of an HOA President who would do that. But again, this will all be for the best. Let the disgruntled men have their fun. But, if anyone feels that Mr. Robinson and Mr. Farris are such great community examples, there are many parcels of land still for sale next to each of these gentlemen. These men are not thinking of anyone but themselves, but it appears to many of you, that does not matter, so enjoy the view.
.
Unfortunately, this defection from the HOA will never occur so many of us in units 1 and 2 will have our hearts broken. All purchasers in units 3 and 4, please look over the various title and deed documents, closing statements, when the parcels were purchased from DePaulo. The documents state that all purchasers must abide by the rules and regulations of this development/The Estates of Millbrook of which they are being a part of, and does clearly state that yearly dues are $275 per year. This information relating to the CCR is stated in those legal documents.

I agree. Install a small brick wall adjacant to where units 2 and 3 connect on Stonewall, alering the distinction and separation of the development. Units 3 and 4 maintain their south entrance, as they see fit, as well as the maintenance of their portions of the pathway and common areas. Let them build their oversized garages for their motor homes. But whatever we do in units 1 and 2, always show the distinction between the units, so the property values in the first two units can appreciate in relation to the higher standards that will be obvious. It is deplorable that two men in unit 4 can cause such devastation to a beautiful development, for their own egoistic agendas, but that is what has occurred. What I find amazing is, where is the outrage against these two men? We are talking a lot more here than not paying yearly assessements. These two malcontents want to dictate their agenda to all the hard working property owners in their area. They have already gone about this defection in a devious manner. What other plans do they have for the people in units 3 and 4?